From: Alexander H. <ak...@co...> - 2005-07-30 22:00:45
|
On Jul 30, 2005, at 5:35 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Jul 30, 2005, at 15:24:05, Alexander Hansen wrote: > >> IMO we shouldn't have 'bar' provide 'foo' as well as have a >> separate 'foo' package. This is a continual source of chaos. >> >> We should have a common functionality e.g. 'foo-bar', and >> then both 'foo' and 'bar' can provide 'foo-bar'. >> >> In this case we could either have "fink remove foo-bar" >> remove the package that provides 'foo-bar' or throw an error >> stating that it's a virtual package. No ambiguity. >> > > Uhh, what about this reasonably probable example: > > Say we're packaging the "host" command, for which multiple > implementations exist. Yes, Apple provides this one, I know, > but bear with me here, it's a decent real-world example. > > Say we have a "host" package that provides a standalone host > implementation. Let's also say that we have a "bind9" > package, which happens to include a different "host" command > that can use the BIND lightweight resolver library. It > should be possible to have these: > > Package: host > Conflicts: bind9 > Replaces: bind9 > And I'd say here Provides: host-command > Package: bind9 > Provides: host (once again Provides: host-command) > Conflicts: host > Replaces: host > > Now, I _do_ agree that it probably is a terrible idea to have > packages x and y where y provides x but does not conflict > with it. In such a case, two programs providing the same > functionality would be _guaranteed_ (absent dpkg-divert) to > have filename conflicts, assuming they actually provide the > same functionality. > > Cheers, > Kyle Moffett > > -- > Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming > -- C.A.R. Hoare > My addition is a bit facetious, too, in this case. I don't know if it's actually better or not--I'm more opposed to packages Providing themselves on aesthetic grounds. -- Alexander Hansen Fink Documentarian [Day Job] Levitated Dipole Experiment http://psfcwww2.psfc.mit.edu/ldx/ |